Is there an unforeseen impact to no longer taxing under $150,000? (Other than MORE winning?)
The left decry how "the rich must pay their fair share". (But who ARE the rich?)
The liberal decries the unfairness of the low income paying taxes. (But who ARE the low income?)
The politician seeks to eliminate the middle class. (Cause' fuck'em?)
The conservative seeks to be left alone. (Get off my grass!)
I am personally all for a flat 10% tax on all. If it's good enough for God, then it's more than enough for the government in my opinion.
BUT... with the rumblings that Sec of Commerce Howard Lutnick floating the idea of no longer taxing anyone making under $150,000 year, what would that realistically do to the economy?
I know that when regulations and taxation decrease that jobs and commerce increase significantly, thus increasing federal revenue (It's like the $0.99 Whopper from the late 1990's. Smaller margins, WAY MORE volume!), and I'm a long time fan of this style of government; But this begs TWO major questions from me:
Are there any unforeseen flaws in this plan? (Other than getting closer to being tired of winning?)
How does this get spun by the left to be a bad thing?
Thoughts?
And before the bots begin their work, I'm eagerly looking forward to their downvote machine.